Essay to Personified Objects/Objectified Persons

By Michael Jackson

Sanne Kaasen

May 10, 2002

In this essay I wish to look at the function and purpose of tests, how and why they are used by the people who take them, and how if at all they influence their self perception, taking into account the definition of Robert Thornton in ‘Notes Towards a Theory of Objects and Persons’:

"In philosophical language, objectivity can not be confused with subjectivity; the former is uniquely the property of objects while the latter is uniquely the property of persons. Persons act as a consequence of their consciousness, and have moral status or ‘soul’ but not ‘value’ and can therefore not be objects. Objects…have values but not moral status and therefore cannot be persons."(Thornton 1997: p38)

There are different categories of tests, test in this case meaning a series of questions used to determine the personality of the test object. In order to describe the test objects personality it is necessary to simplify it to the point of reducing it to labels (just as the reality of the land is reduced to maps in order to present it in a comprehensive way). The act of reducing a person to a number of personality traits is unable to represent the person as an individual, it is merely a list of the values that the test has found to apply to the test object in question.

Determining a test objects personality by means of a test is a way of ascribing certain values to the test object, which, according to the above definition is contrary to their ‘personness’. According to this definition only an object can have a value, so accepting my postulate that test results ascribes a value to the test object, a test reduces a person to an object.

George Devereux has in his analysis of reciprocity between observer and subject concluded that the observer reduces the relationship between him/herself and his/her subject to a one way relationship in order to avoid being counter observed and understood by the subject "..because we [the observers] do not know ourselves and our stimulus value… and do not wish to know it."(Devereux 1967: p27)

The observer reduces the observed to a non person so that he/she can study the observed without having to confront their personness, and can avoid to see his/hers own reflections in the observed.

The creators of the tests may similarly refuse to consider the personness of their test objects to avoid having to revise their self image.

I have argued that taking a test reduces a person to an object by attaching simplified values (test results) to the test object, simply because it is impossible to describe a personality with its vast details. I have furthermore argued that the creators of the tests may reduce the test objects to objects for their own reasons. In the following I will discuss a couple of tests, and some possible explanatory models to apply.

Some tests are based on scientific theory, like IQ tests, these are used to determine the abilities of the test object to function in our society. Personality tests, like the Rorschach tests, are used to make a psychological profile of the test object, while the MBTI type, are often used by employers to decide whether to employ or promote someone. Other tests, which can be found in magazines or online are meant more for entertainment. These tests do not need a professional to interpret and validate the results, although some of them may be loosely based on some scientific theories.

One way to look at the taking of a test is as a method of self labelling. To objectify oneself by attaching the values of the test results to ones personality.

The tests results provide a strategy for the test object to take on an identity that makes sense within a social environment, and possibly to themselves, and is easy to communicate to other people. This can be tempting to do if lacking a firm self image, or if ones identity is not otherwise recognized and/or validated. One example of this strategy is the behaviour of people accused of witchcraft, as explained by Lisbet Holst in her literary analysis of the witch hunting in the 1600:

"As suggested above is seems for some of the accused to have fulfilled a purpose to confess…. They can also have become ‘recognizable’ for themselves. Has their concrete life so far amounted to a boundless anonymous suffering, violation and lack, then through the confession it gets a kind of coherence and meaning, an interpretation – and significance."

People lacking a socially recognized identity, to become a ‘player’ in their society, and control of their own lives, will sometimes accept an identity thrust upon them, because it gives them a voice, an opportunity to be heard, or as Michael Jackson states about Kuranko women accused of witch craft:

"…it is important to recognize that witchcraft confession is also a desperate stratagem for reclaiming autonomy in a hopeless situation."(Jackson 1989: p 100)

The application of this explanation to the issue above however, would mean that the people who take these tests feel that they are without recognition or identity, that they need to find a voice that will let them be heard, and that they perceive these tests as offering a solution.

I was told by someone who has taken the MBTI test several times in the last ten years (at work related courses, or in connection with hiring interviews) that for him the result of his most recent MBTI test was an excuse to behave in his usual way, and not try to be more social. He accepted the test results as a licence to live out the stereotype of an introverted engineer, and not having to make the effort to take on a more socially accepted persona. This is not a case where the test results gives someone a voice who would otherwise lack it, but rather the test results legitimated a certain behaviour that is not recognized as socially desirable in general, and the person in question made an active choice in using this test result in his self image.

Another way of seeing the use of tests is as a method to find a group identity, to identify with or to differentiate oneself from a group.

When a person takes a test, then the result of the test ascribes a value to the person, which will – if the person chooses to accept the view of him/herself – become part of his/her identity. This can be used to mark a belonging to a group, or a differentiation from a group. The group of people taking the test, the group of people getting the same results as oneself, the people the test, and its result, is shared with.

In a way, the value ascribing process of a test is similar to the one taking place when consumers buy commodities. The commodity is considered by the consumer to have a certain social value, expensive, cheap, chic, kitsch, etc, that reflects on the consumer. In the same way there are tests people take because the tests appeal to them, and test results they like/dislike because the social value of the results ‘appeals’ to them. The test results embody labels and values they wish to integrate in their personality.

The tests can be seen as a way of generate social capital in a society where the structures may be too eroded, and too shifting, to provide the social structure to endorse and validate social capital (at least the way I read Bourdieu)

"…as social capital, made up of social obligations (‘connections’), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalised in the form of a title of nobility."(Bourdieu 1986: p 243)

Most societies, however shifting and changing, have some social coherence and they contain a number of ways of generating social capital. But when people are socializing in a void, as they often are in online communities, the usual ways to generate social capital, express personality or emotions are usually not present, and other means are required.

I believe the explanation of the use of tests as a way to find a group identity, or to generate social capital, is supported by some observations I have made regarding IQ tests results: If someone’s IQ test results are high enough they can become members of an exclusive club – Mensa. To be a member of Mensa holds a certain amount of prestige because it is so exclusive (you can become a member of Mensa if your IQ is in the 99’th percentile) and because it demarcates a quality that’s highly regarded in our society.

Some members of Mensa exhibit their membership certificate from Mensa in their offices, capitalizing on the prestige of being a member of this exclusive group. This membership may impress any visitors/co-workers/employers, and earn the Mensa member some social capital.

Some people take IQ tests specifically in order to try to become members of the exclusive group Mensa, because it, in my opinion, sets them apart from the non-members, and gain them an understanding of themselves as special, and talented.

A test can be seen as a means by which a person (the test object) is being reduced to a category, and since we all think in categories, tests, and test results, make it easier to think about oneself, and others.

Test results can also provide a categorizing schema that can influence the way people think about others. If there are five different results of a test, then using the test results as a reference, there are five categories that people can fit in. This provides a pattern to organize an understanding of other people after.

I have tried to come up with some theoretical explanations of the use and significance of tests in people’s lives, garnished with my own observations, but in order to understand the phenomenon it is necessary to take a closer look at the actual situations of where and how test are used. I am unable to do so with the aforementioned ‘scientific’ tests, but I have made some observations about the ‘entertainment’ tests in the following. Hopefully these observations will allow me to answer some of my queries more fully.

Entertainment tests can be found in several places, particularly in magazines and online. The online tests are found throughout the internet, and in different ‘settings’. The most noticeable ones are the ones that are made and published by separate individuals. They are meant for people to take, and then copy the link to the test as well as their result, and publish it on their blog. Then there are specialized sites dedicated to tests, like www.emode.com. This kind of website offers nothing but tests.

These two types of tests show the two main trends in online testing (the others are too diverse to identify any trends) and they have several things in common, even though one of them is commercial, while the other is created by separate individuals for the fun of it.

One of the things they have in common is that one of their objectives are to say something about the test objects personality in a fun way, another is that they can be used on an individual basis, but that they are equally meant to be used as a group activity, or to be shared with other people.

I have observed the way tests are used in some online societies that I am a member of. I participate on a couple of very social mailing lists, and I believe that these lists are a good place to go for observations regarding tests.

On these mailing lists someone regularly post a link to a test, and their own results. This usually causes a cascade of posts where people tell what their result of the test is – what they are – sometimes they even use the results in their signature. Occasionally such a cascade of posts turn into a discussion, but usually the individual post regarding the mailers test results stand alone, and is not reflected over in the group mailings.

Sometimes new people on these lists take a couple of recently published tests, and use the results to introduce themselves to the other members on the list.

This kind of behaviour in my opinion shows that people use the taking of tests as a group activity that establishes and confirms the group as a group. The group dynamic is apparent in this. By introducing the ‘right’ tests to the group, the ones other people on the list will want to take as well, one gains prestige/shows that one is a trendsetter in the group, whereas if someone publishes the wrong test, the lack of response clearly shows that they are either lacking in prestige in the group, not considered belonging to the group, or just lacking in judgment to match the interests of the group with the right tests (and therefore unable to gain prestige in the group).

At the same time the test results are used by the individual group member, to present themselves to the group in an environment, or lack of environment, where other means are limited. They are using the test results as a means of establishing themselves as individuals to the rest of the group. The publication of the test results can be used as an introduction to the group, as well as an ongoing refinement of ones identity within the group.

The majority of the people I have spoken to about their reasons for taking entertainment tests, claim to take them for the fun of it. A minority refuses to take tests, because they do not wish to be categorized in such a manner.

The ways the test results are used as shown above (to present oneself to the group, to find similarities with others, to mark a belonging to the group) shows that even if the test objects are unconcerned with it, the tests fulfil a social function.

I read this concern about being categorized as a concern to have ones self image influenced by the test results. It is interesting that the people who take the tests show no concern for being categorized or influenced, although the tests generally purport to identify personality traits/abilities/names of the test object, and therefore should be able to do so (in my opinion). If people don’t take the tests seriously, does that mean that it negate the tests functions as categorizing?

I have in this essay tried to explain the phenomenon of tests socially and psychologically from the point of view of the test object, as well as the function of the tests from the limited observations I have available. My analysis has, in my opinion, provided a understanding of the way tests are used socially, and I have been able to deduce some likely ways people use tests in their self image, although I lack observations to confirm or disprove my deductions.

It is an integral part of tests to objectify the test takers by applying the values of the test results to them. Whether this is recognized by the test takers in their use of the tests I have been unable to determine (the people who admits to thinking that way about tests does not take tests).

The above analysis demonstrates that people use tests to belong to a group or demonstrate a belonging to a group, or to differentiate themselves from other people. They can use test results as a way of introducing themselves to a group, by quoting the results of a test to demonstrate their identity. When the test results are considered positive by the test object, they may be quoted to gain or demonstrate status.

Some people apparently use the test results as a legitimisation of their (maybe not so socially acceptable) behaviour, while others use positive test results to make them feel special.

Then there is the frame of reference the test results provide by furnishing the reader (of the test results) with a number of categories to organize people in.

I expected to find that people use tests to find out who they are, to categorize themselves, and find an identity. This I have been unable to observe to any great extent.

Devereux G. 1967 From Anxiety to Method in the Behavioral Sciences

The Hague: Mouton

Levi-Strauss C. 1966 The Savage Mind

The University of Chicago Press